Published On: Sat, Nov 3rd, 2018

Zealots for criminalisation by Equality and Diversity (police) suddenly favour upholding the law: how big the coming crisis?

Share This

Speaking at, and opening a conference hosted this week by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, a so-called “top cop” seemingly took the lid off a can of worms. Being expressed was a view regarding the state of British policing that would, on the surface at least, resonate with those who feel that a more desirable traditional approach has suffered because of an increasing focus on “politically correct crime”. Resonation – noise making – at a superficial level, of course, had to have been the objective: for Sara Thornton, the Chair of the NPCC set off what can quite easily be discerned as an exercise in Public Relations, and let loose a talking point around which the public can pick sides – and here they are: those who don’t think men wolf-whistling at women should be criminalised versus those who think the other side aren’t sufficiently subordinate to the control-over-the-majority mechanism which is the doctrine of Equality and Diversity. Naturally, nobody of the triggered public in either partition of the battle lines properly understands the issue. Indeed, those on the side of “traditional policing” – the sort who are gate-kept by the execrable Peter Hitchens (who, a few days ahead of Thornton’s conference speech, and with a sort of very convenient timing noticed hereabouts before, contributed his two-penn’orth  into the general policing issue pot [at the same time as managing an along-the-exact-same-lines lucky confluence]), and the sort who will draw comfort and hope from statements of apparent support for their position from the likes of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, the chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, and the chief constable of West Midlands police –  will likely scarcely register the overt reassurance given by Thornton to would-be victims that “politically correct crime” is not going to suddenly go away. The problem is a matter of resources, and that is all:

We are asked to provide more and more bespoke services that are all desirable – but the simple fact is there are too many desirable and deserving issues.

For example, treating misogyny as a hate crime is a concern for some well-organised campaigning organisations…

I want us to solve more burglaries and bear down on violence before we make more records of incidents that are not crimes.

The message is clearly of priorities: therefore, it is manpower, if we dare call it that (of course we do) that is preventing the prosecution of misogyny as a crime from being a “bespoke service” offered by police. And yet people think the issue is about one thing versus another, and that progressives are finally admitting a preference for the reaction.

It should be noted that the stage, for what appears to be a considerable Public Relations operation, was actually set in late October when a House of Commons committee headed by Yvette Cooper (a “Blair Babe”), published a report indicating official concern for the irrelevance of the police – and thus demonstrated total cognisance of what is at the crux of the perception-shaping media flurry.

One of the conclusions of this committee was that UK police forces are “woefully under-resourced”; chief amongst the recommendations was that money be pumped into the police. This is only to be expected, dear FBEL reader: this way the public can pay for a clamp-down of its own “hate”, or even its right to think and speak freely. Moreover, there can be no doubt that police forces would love to enhance their Public Relations capabilities to carry on where this current exercise has started off: to give an impression that senior figures are on the public’s side, and desire that policing be carried out as a long-suffering majority expects it to be.

A clue that soundings of concern by big police cheeses only amount to the paying of a little lip service comes in the messenger: Sara Thornton is an example of that physically insufficient sort of operative now abundant in UK forces that makes them unfit for “traditional policing”: a woman. Now, here at FBEL there cannot be a denigration of the feminised police because the very existence of what amounts to a State-controlled militia is found to be entirely objectionable; a Gestapo consisting of men only doesn’t make any difference to its being the Gestapo. The point is this: Sara Thornton is in herself a demonstration of the absolute commitment of UK police to impose Equality and Diversity social engineering; of practising what it preaches. Looking at her career record, it is quite likely that she wouldn’t know what constituted “traditional policing” if it put her over its knee and gave her a spanking. For an undisclosed period over 14 years, before her promotion to Assistant Chief Constable for Specialist Operations, Thames Valley Police (says the Wikipedia page about her), Sara Thornton occupied a strategic role for New Scotland Yard. Strategy, of course, is all about deciding what objectives should be met, and defining criteria by which success can be measured: it is, then, intrinsically linked with Public Relations because ultimately the police are answerable to tax payers. As such, the public needs to be propagandised to have the impression that police are meeting their stated objectives – and, moreover, that the stated objectives are for the public good. The latter role for PR is perhaps more vital than the former, and for an explanation we must revisit a previous FBEL article titled The police as militia, and the “policing by consent” deception.

As discussed previously, there is a vast difference between law and legislation:

Law is that which stems from an individual’s rights – not to be attacked, murdered, robbed, or swindled; to summarise, law is about the protection of one party from the criminal intent of another.

When the likes of Peter Hitchens talks about the police at one time being respected for upholding the law, he is referring to the idea that through their presence, they prevented injury to the person or property. This is exactly what many people tend to associate with “traditional policing”, and it is the ideal that Thornton appeals to when she intimates that policing should be more about solving burglaries and bearing down on violence. However, herein lies the big deception.

Firstly, there has never been “traditional policing”, because policing has always been about enforcing legislation, or imposing government policy. Legislation must be wholly voluntary, because of the potential and indeed the tendency for government policy to violate the individual rights of a citizen. This means that the public can withdraw consent for legislation. Consequently, the purpose of the police is to enforce where there is no consent (which would mean breaking the law), but more preferably to encourage consent by being seen as essential partners – or protectors – in upholding the law (and thus winning approval).

And yet there doesn’t need to be a government agency to uphold the law for the public: the public should act in its own right to defend itself. For instance, if citizens were armed with guns, and could shoot trespassers that intended them harm, then burglary rates would undoubtedly fall (as would attempts to shakedown households with TV licence enforcement visits).

Basically, it all boils down to this: police are empowered to enforce legislation by dint of the public’s surrendering its right to uphold the law. In other words, to enforce its policy, Government needs the public to believe that police are interested in “[solving] more burglaries and bear[ing] down on violence”; hence the Public Relations at this time. Indeed, in the abovementioned FBEL article it was written that the “advantage of having public approval (which is a PR task that can be unrelated to the policing activity) [is] for whatever it is the police sees fit to do”. As for timing, it is very likely that the upcoming Fake Brexit (enter the term in the search box for FBEL articles on it) will be so provocative that many people, already sick of Equality and Diversity, who think a supposed independent country yet still under the yoke of foreign legislation is an offence against which they must defend themselves, will withdraw consent for such rule and instead insist on birthrights – and just maybe the British Government is keenly aware of this.

It is certainly the case that a restoration of natural order is long overdue, and this cannot just entail root and branch reform of the police. The UK police forces are beyond the pale, and the citizenry cannot overlook the abuses suffered at the hands of UK police forces by merely accepting Truth and Reconciliation processes that only force out apologies. Careers must be ended, and criminals must be brought to justice: those who broke the law to enforce legislation. Then, of course, there are the police who have been party to and who have covered up acts of State crime, such as the many false-flag and hoax terror incidents that have been perpetrated since 2000.

Naturally, because the justice system operated by the Crown will never let actors on behalf of the Government (against The People) anywhere near a dock for a tribunal to discover guilt, it means that there will be an eventual need to establish grand juries, or a variation of the type, which will draw authority from The People – meaning any right-minded community that are of a sufficient number and have the wherewithal to protect a court and to carry out its judgements (from unlawful impediment from the Crown – assuming that it doesn’t capitulate, but maintains its imposture of being sovereign beyond its becoming irrelevant). As has been said hereabouts before, the details do not need to be decided yet – at this stage it suffices that The People familiarise themselves with the prospect of necessary measures, and with the idea that even if they have previously appeared to be unthinkable, such grand expressions of self-defence and lawful response to tyranny should certainly not be out of the bounds of possibility.

Before this piece is brought to an end, a mention must be made of what must surely be another contributing factor in engendering a PR exercise in the pursuit of police strategy: confidence in the role, or lack of it, being felt by the rank and file who have to encounter public reaction to enforcement of Equality and Diversity legislation. These people could be dispirited, to say the least. Moreover, if a policeman shares public disgust for the job he is assigned, and does not consider it to be real police work, then he is likely to feel inclined to revolt or resign: neither would be conducive to Government agenda if such sentiments were widely held (though we could imagine that police forces would be keen to eject isolated cases of disgruntlement in the interest of having a more fully corrupted compliment of staff). The author has a particular interest in the morale of the “beat bobbies” of the Metropolitan Police, having knowledge as he does of the Westminster Bridge inquest (via the transcripts -no mysticism involved), where it appears that there could be a belief amongst his peers (although there is no way of telling how far this would extend into the force if it were true) that PC Keith Palmer was shot in the head despite his supposed assailant only having knives (the FBEL reader may have noticed the distinct lack of interest in the British alternative media upon this matter).

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.